Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1242 (JHR)

Md. Ataul Ansari v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-07-24

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Mr. Durga C. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Satish Kr. Keshri, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 03.12.2016 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka in Original Maintenance Petition No. 113 of 2013 whereby and where under the petitioner has been directed to make payment of monthly maintenance of Rs. 1,800/- per month to the opposite party no. 3. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner works on a contract basis and earns an amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month whereas opposite party no. 2 who is his ex-wife is a computer operator earning an amount of Rs. 14,700/- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party no. 2 is financially capable of maintaining the opposite party no. 3 and the petitioner in fact has another wife and two children out of the said wedlock whom he has to maintain and therefore in such circumstances the quantum of maintenance imposed upon the petitioner be reduced substantially. Learned counsel in support of his contention has referred to an order passed by this Court in the Case of Dinesh Sharma v. Rupa Rani Sharma reported in 2012 (4) PJLR 215 . 4. It appears from perusal of the impugned order dated 03.12.2016 that the finding has been recorded that the petitioner works on a contractual basis having an income of Rs. 6,000/- per month. The application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 was preferred on behalf of the opposite party no. 3 who is admittedly the daughter of the petitioner. Although it is said that the opposite party no. 2 earns an amount of Rs. 14,700/- per month but merely because she is earning some amount the same will not absolve the petitioner from making payment of maintenance to her daughter since it is the bounden duty of the petitioner being the father of the opposite party no. 3 to maintain his daughter who is aged about six years. 5. So far as the judgment which has been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the said case the wife was employed as a Panchayat teacher having a fixed salary and therefore consideration was made with respect to her income. 6. 3 to maintain his daughter who is aged about six years. 5. So far as the judgment which has been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the said case the wife was employed as a Panchayat teacher having a fixed salary and therefore consideration was made with respect to her income. 6. In the present case nothing has been stated as to whether the opposite party no. 2 is permanently employed as she seems to be working under a project of the State Government. As stated above the role of the petitioner being the father cannot be diluted merely because of the fact that the petitioner earns an income which is lesser than the opposite party no. 2. On proper consideration of the income of both the petitioner as well as the opposite party no. 2 a meager amount of Rs. 1800/- per month has been awarded. The circumstances enumerated in the order dated 03.12.2016 does not justify any interference by this court and accordingly having found no merit in this application, the same is, hereby, dismissed.